True to form, National is now objecting to a proposed visit to this country by Chelsea Manning. National Party immigration spokesperson Michael Woodhouse said if it were up to him he would be banning Ms Manning from the country. ‘Chelsea Manning used a position of responsibility and authority to steal hundreds of thousands of documents that may well have put American lives at risk’, he is quoted as saying.

Of course he says nothing about the many actual unlawful deaths the Americans themselves were responsible for, none of which would have come to light without Manning’s courageous actions, and for which she paid a high price (unless anyone thinks seven years of psychological torture in Leavenworth is an easy ride).

‘It was highly inappropriate that she should make money from talking about her crimes’, Mr Woodhouse said. Again, not a word about the crimes she exposed, such as the infamous ‘collateral damage’ video that vividly revealed American helicopter pilots gunning down defenceless civilians.

Chelsea Manning is a recognised whistleblower and according to Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, there is no evidence to suggest she would be a risk to New Zealand. "I feel like if you're a person that feels like abuses of power being exposed is a threat to you, then you might be part of the problem really", she said.

For the record, I don't agree with National objecting to the CM visit. Or any other bans that are only to do with political views.

But I can see why National is trying it on. When they have themselves been on the receiving end of a politically motivated ban.

Don Brash is a NZ citizen - so there's no question of denying him entry at all. That example is a huge difference.

I do get the feeling there's a bit of dog whistling going on here though, surrounding use of potential banning of undesirables for political reasons (which didn't happen in the case of the Canadian Fascist white power agitators) and Manning who might be seen as a hero of "liberals" - who could be rightly denied a visa if following "the rules". Manning didn't receive a "pardon" - but her sentence was commuted. She was denied a visa to visit Canada. I think she could be denied a visa to visit NZ.

In Manning's case, I think it's in NZ best interest for politicians to basically STFU and not make a fuss to score points - and leave it to bureaucrats to follow rules. Don't poke the bear.

Don Brash is a NZ citizen - so there's no question of denying him entry at all. That example is a huge difference.

I do get the feeling there's a bit of dog whistling going on here though, surrounding use of potential banning of undesirables for political reasons (which didn't happen in the case of the Canadian Fascist white power agitators) and Manning who might be seen as a hero of "liberals" - who could be rightly denied a visa if following "the rules". Manning didn't receive a "pardon" - but her sentence was commuted. She was denied a visa to visit Canada. I think she could be denied a visa to visit NZ.

In Manning's case, I think it's in NZ best interest for politicians to basically STFU and not make a fuss to score points - and leave it to bureaucrats to follow rules. Don't poke the bear.

The 2 examples are comparable, if you look at the end results. Which is preventing (or trying to prevent) someone from presenting a speech that has political content.

Agree that there is a big difference to the methods involved in achieving the outcomes.

True to form, National is now objecting to a proposed visit to this country by Chelsea Manning. National Party immigration spokesperson Michael Woodhouse said if it were up to him he would be banning Ms Manning from the country. ‘Chelsea Manning used a position of responsibility and authority to steal hundreds of thousands of documents that may well have put American lives at risk’, he is quoted as saying.

Of course he says nothing about the many actual unlawful deaths the Americans themselves were responsible for, none of which would have come to light without Manning’s courageous actions, and for which she paid a high price (unless anyone thinks seven years of psychological torture in Leavenworth is an easy ride).

‘It was highly inappropriate that she should make money from talking about her crimes’, Mr Woodhouse said. Again, not a word about the crimes she exposed, such as the infamous ‘collateral damage’ video that vividly revealed American helicopter pilots gunning down defenceless civilians.

Chelsea Manning is a recognised whistleblower and according to Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, there is no evidence to suggest she would be a risk to New Zealand. "I feel like if you're a person that feels like abuses of power being exposed is a threat to you, then you might be part of the problem really", she said.

I don't think that it has anything to do with what Chelsea has to say, but rather the fact that she's a convicted criminal who was sentenced for a period of more than five years, which by default causes immigration issues on that basis... I don't have a problem with that particular rule being in place and enforced.

I would have a problem if Chelsea came and had the same issues as those Canadian idiots or Brash...

This is an immigration issue. A kiwi with a history of similar offences wouldn't be allowed into the US.

Manning could enjoy un-fettered freedom of speech via video-call into any meeting or public event in NZ.

People may remember that Julien Assange once did so for an internet-mana party rally.

He was responsible for publishing huge amounts of leaked material, much of it embarrassing to NZ and our allies, was wanted on criminal charges (IIRC rape) and was supposedly going to dish the dirt on the then National govt.

The nature of these discussions is such that the original point often gets lost in the ensuing comments. Some of the material disclosed by Manning provided clear evidence of immoral and illegal acts on the part of the United States. If she hadn't revealed this information, it would never have been known. My point was that Woodhouse, speaking on behalf of National, gets all outraged and indignant about Manning exposing America's dirty laundry, but not a thought for the numerous innocent victims of American violence. This is a huge double standard and that is what I was calling out. Also, I believe it has never been shown that a single American life was lost due to Manning's disclosures.

I don't think that it has anything to do with what Chelsea has to say, but rather the fact that she's a convicted criminal who was sentenced for a period of more than five years, which by default causes immigration issues on that basis... I don't have a problem with that particular rule being in place and enforced.

As mentioned, she did what she did on political grounds, so she is a different class of criminal to the main stream. I can see you might be at risk if she came with a history as a convicted repeat car thief or murderer.

Don't forget what was exposed - among other things, illegal GCSB spying on NZ citizens , a crime for which no one has been held accountable.

As mentioned, she did what she did on political grounds, so she is a different class of criminal to the main stream. I can see you might be at risk if she came with a history as a convicted repeat car thief or murderer.

Don't forget what was exposed - among other things, illegal GCSB spying on NZ citizens , a crime for which no one has been held accountable.

The law doesn't differentiate among 'classes' of criminals as you describe them.

Manning decided to leak, knowing the consequences for a person with his security clearance.

As mentioned, she did what she did on political grounds, so she is a different class of criminal to the main stream. I can see you might be at risk if she came with a history as a convicted repeat car thief or murderer.

Don't forget what was exposed - among other things, illegal GCSB spying on NZ citizens , a crime for which no one has been held accountable.

The law doesn't differentiate among 'classes' of criminals as you describe them.

Manning decided to leak, knowing the consequences for a person with his security clearance.

Life's not always black and white though is it. That's why the law has provision for the minister to grant exemptions. Sometimes good people do bad things for good reasons.

Personally, I think the release of some of the documents was a good thing - because we now know exactly how far our government will bend the rules.

You describe Manning as 'he', but Manning describes herself as 'she'. Does that mean you are unsupportive of her gender reassignment?

As mentioned, she did what she did on political grounds, so she is a different class of criminal to the main stream. I can see you might be at risk if she came with a history as a convicted repeat car thief or murderer.

Don't forget what was exposed - among other things, illegal GCSB spying on NZ citizens , a crime for which no one has been held accountable.

The law doesn't differentiate among 'classes' of criminals as you describe them.

Manning decided to leak, knowing the consequences for a person with his security clearance.

How do you feel about Mark Felt? should he have been convicted and sent to jail if they found him at the time?

As mentioned, she did what she did on political grounds, so she is a different class of criminal to the main stream. I can see you might be at risk if she came with a history as a convicted repeat car thief or murderer.

Don't forget what was exposed - among other things, illegal GCSB spying on NZ citizens , a crime for which no one has been held accountable.

The law doesn't differentiate among 'classes' of criminals as you describe them.

Manning decided to leak, knowing the consequences for a person with his security clearance.

True, but Nelson Mandela would have failed that character test - yet a pair of evil trolling white supremacist Canadian Fascists didn't!

I think we need to get over ourselves / get a far better grip of the fact that "law and order" and "right and wrong" don't mean the same thing.

This is an immigration issue. A kiwi with a history of similar offences wouldn't be allowed into the US.

Not sure how you can assume that. You would need to apply for a Visa and show that you are not a danger to the US population. She is no danger, so if the US denied the Visa, that's breaking the rules as its not for the safety of Americans its for political views, thus censorship.

The nature of these discussions is such that the original point often gets lost in the ensuing comments. Some of the material disclosed by Manning provided clear evidence of immoral and illegal acts on the part of the United States. If she hadn't revealed this information, it would never have been known. My point was that Woodhouse, speaking on behalf of National, gets all outraged and indignant about Manning exposing America's dirty laundry, but not a thought for the numerous innocent victims of American violence. This is a huge double standard and that is what I was calling out. Also, I believe it has never been shown that a single American life was lost due to Manning's disclosures.

Agree. She has annoyed the US, she poses no danger to us. If she is censored as Canada and Australia have done, who decides where the censorship line is? Next year, next decade?

Speaking of double standards, I have been following with great interest the recent developments swirling around Australia's lawn order almost-PM Kiwi-and refugee-bashing conservative hypocrite Peter Dutton, who will not give the slightest consideration to anyone unfortunate enough to be caught in his cross-hairs on the grounds of compassion or even basic human decency, but according to recent media reports seems to be more than willing to bend the rules to breaking point for his mates and big money donors. So much for justice, morality, standards, or even basic honesty. How is it that those with the loudest mouths always seem to have the most slippery values?

Speaking of double standards, I have been following with great interest the recent developments swirling around Australia's lawn order almost-PM Kiwi-and refugee-bashing conservative hypocrite Peter Dutton, who will not give the slightest consideration to anyone unfortunate enough to be caught in his cross-hairs on the grounds of compassion or even basic human decency, but according to recent media reports seems to be more than willing to bend the rules to breaking point for his mates and big money donors. So much for justice, morality, standards, or even basic honesty. How is it that those with the loudest mouths always seem to have the most slippery values?

That's essentially the reason for my freedom of speech stance. Who will draw the line to denote what can be said? One day it might be Nelson Mandela or the Pope, or the Queen. The next day it might be Trump or Dutton, etc